While that tweet looks cogent with hindsight, there really was a very high chance that this would fail.

Even with a free ride, a "student project" still costs a non-trivial amount of money to put together, and blows up exactly the same way the car would have. I don't blame NASA for choosing not to invest in a serious payload for the first flight of a virgin launch system, free or not.

Really the car was ideal. Pretty much free in the event that it failed, but worth colossal style points and exposure if it happened to work. Whatever else people say about him, Musk is an absolute master salesman.

For years, Elon Musk has been talking about his plans to launch thousands of low-orbiting satellites that will be able to provide high speed internet to people around the globe. While the details of those satellites have been kept largely under wraps, we've known that the first round of prototypes were nearing a launch date, and according to a letter posted on the FCC's website yesterday (and spotted by CNET), the first two test satellites will be placed into orbit this weekend.

SpaceX's vice president of satellite affairs told Congress last year that the company planned to launch its first two demo satellites at the end of 2017 and the start of this year, and if everything went well, the first operational satellite could be launched as early as 2019. In its recent letter to the FCC, SpaceX says that two experimental satellites -- Microsat-2a and -2b -- will launch on one of its Falcon 9 rockets, which will also be carrying Paz, a radar observation satellite belonging to the Spanish government. A static fire of that rocket took place this weekend and Paz, Microsat-2a and Microsat-2b are currently scheduled for a February 17th liftoff. The Falcon 9 will launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base at 6:17AM Pacific, according to a notice on the base's website.

While these things are always subject to delays, SpaceX plans to have all of its internet-providing satellites up in orbit by 2024. And though the project is expected to cost around $10 billion, Musk expects it to generate quite a bit of revenue once it's up and running. Naturally, that revenue will be funnelled to Musk's larger goal -- Mars. In 2015, he said about the project, known as Starlink, "This is intended to generate a significant amount of revenue, and help fund a city on Mars. So in looking in the long term, and saying what's needed to create a city on Mars, well, one thing's for sure: a lot of money. So we need things that will generate a lot of money."

I hope a new admin scraps this dumbass idea. If one thing goes wrong on the ISS, the country that caused it will have hell to pay.

Also, NASA being quiet is understandable. They got bested by a private company sending shit and people back into Mars/orbit and they have the 2nd strongest rocket (SpaceX). They're probably huddled somewhere thinking of the biggest and most powerful shit they can launch, like the telescopes and larger satellites to reach further back in space.

Providing low-cost/free internet is a very noble endeavor. I think it'll also be used as a relay link to a Moon colony once everything is said and done. Just push it a bit further out towards the moon and voila!

Of course not. What I'm saying is that, NASA has had it's fangs ripped out and now SpaceX has proven that reusable rockets are possible, that you can make the rocket designs cheaper, and once Dragon Crew is tested and successful, whenever that may be, they'll be the cheapest seat on the planet for NASA. Is there a need for Orion or SLS now?

I feel like NASA is no longer NASA that I was captivated by in the 90s.

NASA's role as a "development catalyst" has been part of the agency's objectives since its earliest days, said Sean O'Keefe, a former NASA administrator and current university professor at Syracuse University.

"The idea was to spin that into opportunities for commercial market potential for other discoveries, for those who would build on the knowledge base of what was determined, discovered or invented as a means to overcome obstacles and take it to another level," he said.

"I'm not afraid of death. I was thinking about it a lot, then I thought: Well, most of the best people are dead.... and there are an awful lot of awful people still alive.... and most of them are in charge." - John Cleese

NASA's role as a "development catalyst" has been part of the agency's objectives since its earliest days, said Sean O'Keefe, a former NASA administrator and current university professor at Syracuse University.

"The idea was to spin that into opportunities for commercial market potential for other discoveries, for those who would build on the knowledge base of what was determined, discovered or invented as a means to overcome obstacles and take it to another level," he said.

I don't think I'm explaining myself correctly. -_-;

NASA is the engine to drive commercial space investment and exploration. But I feel that NASA is also not doing more than it could with these companies. It's hard to put into words. Apologies.

On February 14 2018 22:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Of course not. What I'm saying is that, NASA has had it's fangs ripped out and now SpaceX has proven that reusable rockets are possible, that you can make the rocket designs cheaper, and once Dragon Crew is tested and successful, whenever that may be, they'll be the cheapest seat on the planet for NASA. Is there a need for Orion or SLS now?

I feel like NASA is no longer NASA that I was captivated by in the 90s.

I agree, I would like to see NASA lead in innovation, doing the cost-inefficient pushing of the frontier while commercial companies ride in its wake but for that NASA needs funding, and its not going to get that. When you need to take money from the government budget somewhere NASA is an easy way that not many people complain about, compared to social programs or the military.

Two billion were mentioned in the L.A. Times article, I was refering to.

"I'm not afraid of death. I was thinking about it a lot, then I thought: Well, most of the best people are dead.... and there are an awful lot of awful people still alive.... and most of them are in charge." - John Cleese